02-07-2018, 02:28 PM
Regressing to the mean/bad old days?
Signing Day
02-07-2018, 02:56 PM
It was a bad class, not merely because of rankings. Here's why:
1) the coaches didn't recruit for their needs at ILB and OL
2) they overestimated their appeal to recruits and didn't make enough offers
3) they underestimated the number of open spots, compounding the effect at 2)
All and all, a real failure on the coaches' part. If they do a good job in 2019 and forward the effects won't be too nasty, but it's a missed opportunity at best. That said, while the 2019 class looked promising last summer, most of their top targets have decided to go elsewhere. I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, but they need to turn things around if they don't want to regress to 7-5, 8-4 type seasons.
1) the coaches didn't recruit for their needs at ILB and OL
2) they overestimated their appeal to recruits and didn't make enough offers
3) they underestimated the number of open spots, compounding the effect at 2)
All and all, a real failure on the coaches' part. If they do a good job in 2019 and forward the effects won't be too nasty, but it's a missed opportunity at best. That said, while the 2019 class looked promising last summer, most of their top targets have decided to go elsewhere. I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, but they need to turn things around if they don't want to regress to 7-5, 8-4 type seasons.
It was a bad class, not merely because of rankings. Here's why:
1) the coaches didn't recruit for their needs at ILB and OL
2) they overestimated their appeal to recruits and didn't make enough offers
3) they underestimated the number of open spots, compounding the effect at 2)
All and all, a real failure on the coaches' part. If they do a good job in 2019 and forward the effects won't be too nasty, but it's a missed opportunity at best. That said, while the 2019 class looked promising last summer, most of their top targets have decided to go elsewhere. I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, but they need to turn things around if they don't want to regress to 7-5, 8-4 type seasons.
1) the coaches didn't recruit for their needs at ILB and OL
2) they overestimated their appeal to recruits and didn't make enough offers
3) they underestimated the number of open spots, compounding the effect at 2)
All and all, a real failure on the coaches' part. If they do a good job in 2019 and forward the effects won't be too nasty, but it's a missed opportunity at best. That said, while the 2019 class looked promising last summer, most of their top targets have decided to go elsewhere. I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, but they need to turn things around if they don't want to regress to 7-5, 8-4 type seasons.
02-07-2018, 02:56 PM
It was a bad class, not merely because of rankings. Here's why:
1) the coaches didn't recruit for their needs at ILB and OL
2) they overestimated their appeal to recruits and didn't make enough offers
3) they underestimated the number of open spots, compounding the effect at 2)
All and all, a real failure on the coaches' part. If they do a good job in 2019 and forward the effects won't be too nasty, but it's a missed opportunity at best. That said, while the 2019 class looked promising last summer, most of their top targets have decided to go elsewhere. I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, but they need to turn things around if they don't want to regress to 7-5, 8-4 type seasons.
1) the coaches didn't recruit for their needs at ILB and OL
2) they overestimated their appeal to recruits and didn't make enough offers
3) they underestimated the number of open spots, compounding the effect at 2)
All and all, a real failure on the coaches' part. If they do a good job in 2019 and forward the effects won't be too nasty, but it's a missed opportunity at best. That said, while the 2019 class looked promising last summer, most of their top targets have decided to go elsewhere. I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, but they need to turn things around if they don't want to regress to 7-5, 8-4 type seasons.
It was a bad class, not merely because of rankings. Here's why:
1) the coaches didn't recruit for their needs at ILB and OL
2) they overestimated their appeal to recruits and didn't make enough offers
3) they underestimated the number of open spots, compounding the effect at 2)
All and all, a real failure on the coaches' part. If they do a good job in 2019 and forward the effects won't be too nasty, but it's a missed opportunity at best. That said, while the 2019 class looked promising last summer, most of their top targets have decided to go elsewhere. I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, but they need to turn things around if they don't want to regress to 7-5, 8-4 type seasons.
1) the coaches didn't recruit for their needs at ILB and OL
2) they overestimated their appeal to recruits and didn't make enough offers
3) they underestimated the number of open spots, compounding the effect at 2)
All and all, a real failure on the coaches' part. If they do a good job in 2019 and forward the effects won't be too nasty, but it's a missed opportunity at best. That said, while the 2019 class looked promising last summer, most of their top targets have decided to go elsewhere. I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, but they need to turn things around if they don't want to regress to 7-5, 8-4 type seasons.
02-07-2018, 03:00 PM
(02-07-2018, 02:56 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:It was a bad class, not merely because of rankings. Here's why:
1) the coaches didn't recruit for their needs at ILB and OL
2) they overestimated their appeal to recruits and didn't make enough offers
3) they underestimated the number of open spots, compounding the effect at 2)
All and all, a real failure on the coaches' part. If they do a good job in 2019 and forward the effects won't be too nasty, but it's a missed opportunity at best. That said, while the 2019 class looked promising last summer, most of their top targets have decided to go elsewhere. I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, but they need to turn things around if they don't want to regress to 7-5, 8-4 type seasons.
Or even 9-5 type seasons. . .
;)
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(02-07-2018, 02:56 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:It was a bad class, not merely because of rankings. Here's why:
1) the coaches didn't recruit for their needs at ILB and OL
2) they overestimated their appeal to recruits and didn't make enough offers
3) they underestimated the number of open spots, compounding the effect at 2)
All and all, a real failure on the coaches' part. If they do a good job in 2019 and forward the effects won't be too nasty, but it's a missed opportunity at best. That said, while the 2019 class looked promising last summer, most of their top targets have decided to go elsewhere. I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, but they need to turn things around if they don't want to regress to 7-5, 8-4 type seasons.
Or even 9-5 type seasons. . .
;)
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
02-07-2018, 03:00 PM
(02-07-2018, 02:56 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:It was a bad class, not merely because of rankings. Here's why:
1) the coaches didn't recruit for their needs at ILB and OL
2) they overestimated their appeal to recruits and didn't make enough offers
3) they underestimated the number of open spots, compounding the effect at 2)
All and all, a real failure on the coaches' part. If they do a good job in 2019 and forward the effects won't be too nasty, but it's a missed opportunity at best. That said, while the 2019 class looked promising last summer, most of their top targets have decided to go elsewhere. I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, but they need to turn things around if they don't want to regress to 7-5, 8-4 type seasons.
Or even 9-5 type seasons. . .
;)
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(02-07-2018, 02:56 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:It was a bad class, not merely because of rankings. Here's why:
1) the coaches didn't recruit for their needs at ILB and OL
2) they overestimated their appeal to recruits and didn't make enough offers
3) they underestimated the number of open spots, compounding the effect at 2)
All and all, a real failure on the coaches' part. If they do a good job in 2019 and forward the effects won't be too nasty, but it's a missed opportunity at best. That said, while the 2019 class looked promising last summer, most of their top targets have decided to go elsewhere. I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, but they need to turn things around if they don't want to regress to 7-5, 8-4 type seasons.
Or even 9-5 type seasons. . .
;)
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
02-07-2018, 03:27 PM
(02-07-2018, 12:04 PM)cardcrimson link Wrote:Ooof. One year is not a trend, but woe baby, what an outlier.
Rivals rankings over the years:
2018Â 76
2017Â 19
2016Â 19
2015Â 18
2014Â 14
2013Â 63
2012Â Â 5
2011Â 22
2010Â 26
2009Â 20
2008Â 50
2007Â 52
2006Â 54
2005Â 41
2004Â 57
2003Â 25
2002Â 53
That doesn't seem to be quite updated. As of when I am typing, they have Stanford at #62. Probably will change some more still.
That is one way of looking at things. There are others, and when combined they tend to smooth out the Stanford recruiting profile over the years - lowering the peaks (2012) and raising the valleys (2013 and 2018).
Another way to look at things is avg recruit rating each year. And while we're at it, might as well use 247 composite to get further different view.
There are, of course, some drawbacks to this view (there are advantages to larger class size - even more so when you are leaving scholarships unused, average isn't exactly what matters the most, and withouth doing more work than I am willing to do I cannot sort by avg ranking so I don't have national rank to this) - but there are drawbacks to any single number.
So,
2018Â 88.02
2017Â 92.56
2016Â 87.31
2015Â 87.04
2014Â 89.37
2013Â 87.80
2012Â 90.52
2011Â 87.83
2010Â 87.38
2009Â 87.45
2008Â 83.73
2007Â 82.17
2006Â 80.86
2005Â 84.89
2004Â 81.73
2003Â 82.63
2002Â 83.80
[There does seem to have been a gradual grade inflation here, so one should probably add 1-2 points in comparing 2002 to 2018 with some kind of smooth scale inbetween. And in individual years there seem to be some issue as to whom to count - this year for example they are counting Tae Le whom I think will be a walkon. But since I don't want to check each year, it seems best to go with their count. ]
What I take from this:
- The famous 2009 class really did mark a qualitative change in Stanford recruiting success.
- The recent outliers in per player acclaim are 2017 and to a lesser extent 2012, to the high side.
- This class isn't good, but what I worry about isn't so much the quality of the guys we got. It's primarily the several (six?) open scholarships, the numbers on the OL, and to a lesser extent the numbers at LB.
(02-07-2018, 11:42 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:We badly lagged our rivals. U$C landed 18 top 300 players, while UW nabbed 14 and Oregon and UCLA each landed 10. We got five.
Which service are you using for these numbers? Rivals I guess?
By 247 composite those numbers are:
$CÂ Â 12
UWÂ Â 10
UCLAÂ 9
UOÂ Â 10
Stan  5
That's probably less than normal for $C, a significant step up vs recent years for UW.
For Stanford, recent years have been
2017 = 9
2016 = 6
2015 = 4
2014 = 8
2013 = 3
2012 = 10
2011 = 6
2010 = 4
2009 = 9Â (which also featured an inordinate # of guys unranked, >1000)
Again, the biggest issue seems to be the unfilled scholarships, which seems to be playing out primarily along the OL.
(02-07-2018, 12:04 PM)cardcrimson link Wrote:Ooof. One year is not a trend, but woe baby, what an outlier.
Rivals rankings over the years:
2018Â 76
2017Â 19
2016Â 19
2015Â 18
2014Â 14
2013Â 63
2012Â Â 5
2011Â 22
2010Â 26
2009Â 20
2008Â 50
2007Â 52
2006Â 54
2005Â 41
2004Â 57
2003Â 25
2002Â 53
That doesn't seem to be quite updated. As of when I am typing, they have Stanford at #62. Probably will change some more still.
That is one way of looking at things. There are others, and when combined they tend to smooth out the Stanford recruiting profile over the years - lowering the peaks (2012) and raising the valleys (2013 and 2018).
Another way to look at things is avg recruit rating each year. And while we're at it, might as well use 247 composite to get further different view.
There are, of course, some drawbacks to this view (there are advantages to larger class size - even more so when you are leaving scholarships unused, average isn't exactly what matters the most, and withouth doing more work than I am willing to do I cannot sort by avg ranking so I don't have national rank to this) - but there are drawbacks to any single number.
So,
2018Â 88.02
2017Â 92.56
2016Â 87.31
2015Â 87.04
2014Â 89.37
2013Â 87.80
2012Â 90.52
2011Â 87.83
2010Â 87.38
2009Â 87.45
2008Â 83.73
2007Â 82.17
2006Â 80.86
2005Â 84.89
2004Â 81.73
2003Â 82.63
2002Â 83.80
[There does seem to have been a gradual grade inflation here, so one should probably add 1-2 points in comparing 2002 to 2018 with some kind of smooth scale inbetween. And in individual years there seem to be some issue as to whom to count - this year for example they are counting Tae Le whom I think will be a walkon. But since I don't want to check each year, it seems best to go with their count. ]
What I take from this:
- The famous 2009 class really did mark a qualitative change in Stanford recruiting success.
- The recent outliers in per player acclaim are 2017 and to a lesser extent 2012, to the high side.
- This class isn't good, but what I worry about isn't so much the quality of the guys we got. It's primarily the several (six?) open scholarships, the numbers on the OL, and to a lesser extent the numbers at LB.
(02-07-2018, 11:42 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:We badly lagged our rivals. U$C landed 18 top 300 players, while UW nabbed 14 and Oregon and UCLA each landed 10. We got five.
Which service are you using for these numbers? Rivals I guess?
By 247 composite those numbers are:
$CÂ Â 12
UWÂ Â 10
UCLAÂ 9
UOÂ Â 10
Stan  5
That's probably less than normal for $C, a significant step up vs recent years for UW.
For Stanford, recent years have been
2017 = 9
2016 = 6
2015 = 4
2014 = 8
2013 = 3
2012 = 10
2011 = 6
2010 = 4
2009 = 9Â (which also featured an inordinate # of guys unranked, >1000)
Again, the biggest issue seems to be the unfilled scholarships, which seems to be playing out primarily along the OL.
02-07-2018, 03:27 PM
(02-07-2018, 12:04 PM)cardcrimson link Wrote:Ooof. One year is not a trend, but woe baby, what an outlier.
Rivals rankings over the years:
2018Â 76
2017Â 19
2016Â 19
2015Â 18
2014Â 14
2013Â 63
2012Â Â 5
2011Â 22
2010Â 26
2009Â 20
2008Â 50
2007Â 52
2006Â 54
2005Â 41
2004Â 57
2003Â 25
2002Â 53
That doesn't seem to be quite updated. As of when I am typing, they have Stanford at #62. Probably will change some more still.
That is one way of looking at things. There are others, and when combined they tend to smooth out the Stanford recruiting profile over the years - lowering the peaks (2012) and raising the valleys (2013 and 2018).
Another way to look at things is avg recruit rating each year. And while we're at it, might as well use 247 composite to get further different view.
There are, of course, some drawbacks to this view (there are advantages to larger class size - even more so when you are leaving scholarships unused, average isn't exactly what matters the most, and withouth doing more work than I am willing to do I cannot sort by avg ranking so I don't have national rank to this) - but there are drawbacks to any single number.
So,
2018Â 88.02
2017Â 92.56
2016Â 87.31
2015Â 87.04
2014Â 89.37
2013Â 87.80
2012Â 90.52
2011Â 87.83
2010Â 87.38
2009Â 87.45
2008Â 83.73
2007Â 82.17
2006Â 80.86
2005Â 84.89
2004Â 81.73
2003Â 82.63
2002Â 83.80
[There does seem to have been a gradual grade inflation here, so one should probably add 1-2 points in comparing 2002 to 2018 with some kind of smooth scale inbetween. And in individual years there seem to be some issue as to whom to count - this year for example they are counting Tae Le whom I think will be a walkon. But since I don't want to check each year, it seems best to go with their count. ]
What I take from this:
- The famous 2009 class really did mark a qualitative change in Stanford recruiting success.
- The recent outliers in per player acclaim are 2017 and to a lesser extent 2012, to the high side.
- This class isn't good, but what I worry about isn't so much the quality of the guys we got. It's primarily the several (six?) open scholarships, the numbers on the OL, and to a lesser extent the numbers at LB.
(02-07-2018, 11:42 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:We badly lagged our rivals. U$C landed 18 top 300 players, while UW nabbed 14 and Oregon and UCLA each landed 10. We got five.
Which service are you using for these numbers? Rivals I guess?
By 247 composite those numbers are:
$CÂ Â 12
UWÂ Â 10
UCLAÂ 9
UOÂ Â 10
Stan  5
That's probably less than normal for $C, a significant step up vs recent years for UW.
For Stanford, recent years have been
2017 = 9
2016 = 6
2015 = 4
2014 = 8
2013 = 3
2012 = 10
2011 = 6
2010 = 4
2009 = 9Â (which also featured an inordinate # of guys unranked, >1000)
Again, the biggest issue seems to be the unfilled scholarships, which seems to be playing out primarily along the OL.
(02-07-2018, 12:04 PM)cardcrimson link Wrote:Ooof. One year is not a trend, but woe baby, what an outlier.
Rivals rankings over the years:
2018Â 76
2017Â 19
2016Â 19
2015Â 18
2014Â 14
2013Â 63
2012Â Â 5
2011Â 22
2010Â 26
2009Â 20
2008Â 50
2007Â 52
2006Â 54
2005Â 41
2004Â 57
2003Â 25
2002Â 53
That doesn't seem to be quite updated. As of when I am typing, they have Stanford at #62. Probably will change some more still.
That is one way of looking at things. There are others, and when combined they tend to smooth out the Stanford recruiting profile over the years - lowering the peaks (2012) and raising the valleys (2013 and 2018).
Another way to look at things is avg recruit rating each year. And while we're at it, might as well use 247 composite to get further different view.
There are, of course, some drawbacks to this view (there are advantages to larger class size - even more so when you are leaving scholarships unused, average isn't exactly what matters the most, and withouth doing more work than I am willing to do I cannot sort by avg ranking so I don't have national rank to this) - but there are drawbacks to any single number.
So,
2018Â 88.02
2017Â 92.56
2016Â 87.31
2015Â 87.04
2014Â 89.37
2013Â 87.80
2012Â 90.52
2011Â 87.83
2010Â 87.38
2009Â 87.45
2008Â 83.73
2007Â 82.17
2006Â 80.86
2005Â 84.89
2004Â 81.73
2003Â 82.63
2002Â 83.80
[There does seem to have been a gradual grade inflation here, so one should probably add 1-2 points in comparing 2002 to 2018 with some kind of smooth scale inbetween. And in individual years there seem to be some issue as to whom to count - this year for example they are counting Tae Le whom I think will be a walkon. But since I don't want to check each year, it seems best to go with their count. ]
What I take from this:
- The famous 2009 class really did mark a qualitative change in Stanford recruiting success.
- The recent outliers in per player acclaim are 2017 and to a lesser extent 2012, to the high side.
- This class isn't good, but what I worry about isn't so much the quality of the guys we got. It's primarily the several (six?) open scholarships, the numbers on the OL, and to a lesser extent the numbers at LB.
(02-07-2018, 11:42 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:We badly lagged our rivals. U$C landed 18 top 300 players, while UW nabbed 14 and Oregon and UCLA each landed 10. We got five.
Which service are you using for these numbers? Rivals I guess?
By 247 composite those numbers are:
$CÂ Â 12
UWÂ Â 10
UCLAÂ 9
UOÂ Â 10
Stan  5
That's probably less than normal for $C, a significant step up vs recent years for UW.
For Stanford, recent years have been
2017 = 9
2016 = 6
2015 = 4
2014 = 8
2013 = 3
2012 = 10
2011 = 6
2010 = 4
2009 = 9Â (which also featured an inordinate # of guys unranked, >1000)
Again, the biggest issue seems to be the unfilled scholarships, which seems to be playing out primarily along the OL.
02-07-2018, 03:30 PM
(02-07-2018, 02:56 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:... I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, ...
Or just maybe there is a lot of randomness to the whole process, particularly when you are fishing in a shallow pool.
(02-07-2018, 02:56 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:... I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, ...
Or just maybe there is a lot of randomness to the whole process, particularly when you are fishing in a shallow pool.
02-07-2018, 03:30 PM
(02-07-2018, 02:56 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:... I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, ...
Or just maybe there is a lot of randomness to the whole process, particularly when you are fishing in a shallow pool.
(02-07-2018, 02:56 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:... I don't want to be too hasty here, but it looks like the recruiting game is starting to pass the coaches by. It's strange because the class of 2017 was excellently done. I don't know whether that class gave the coaches hubris, or whether exterior factors have changed, ...
Or just maybe there is a lot of randomness to the whole process, particularly when you are fishing in a shallow pool.
02-07-2018, 03:33 PM
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
02-07-2018, 03:33 PM
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
02-07-2018, 04:12 PM
Does anyone here feel the early signing period hurt the quality or quantity of this class in any way?
I hope this is not a question we ask 4-5 years from now after looking at our class rankings.
I hope this is not a question we ask 4-5 years from now after looking at our class rankings.
02-07-2018, 04:12 PM
Does anyone here feel the early signing period hurt the quality or quantity of this class in any way?
I hope this is not a question we ask 4-5 years from now after looking at our class rankings.
I hope this is not a question we ask 4-5 years from now after looking at our class rankings.
02-07-2018, 04:22 PM
(02-07-2018, 04:12 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:Does anyone here feel the early signing period hurt the quality or quantity of this class in any way?
I hope this is not a question we ask 4-5 years from now after looking at our class rankings.
That is definitely a concern, and one expressed by the coaches prior to the changes. Hopefully if that is the reason, the coaches work with OU to find a way around it for future classes.
BC
(02-07-2018, 04:12 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:Does anyone here feel the early signing period hurt the quality or quantity of this class in any way?
I hope this is not a question we ask 4-5 years from now after looking at our class rankings.
That is definitely a concern, and one expressed by the coaches prior to the changes. Hopefully if that is the reason, the coaches work with OU to find a way around it for future classes.
BC
02-07-2018, 04:22 PM
(02-07-2018, 04:12 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:Does anyone here feel the early signing period hurt the quality or quantity of this class in any way?
I hope this is not a question we ask 4-5 years from now after looking at our class rankings.
That is definitely a concern, and one expressed by the coaches prior to the changes. Hopefully if that is the reason, the coaches work with OU to find a way around it for future classes.
BC
(02-07-2018, 04:12 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:Does anyone here feel the early signing period hurt the quality or quantity of this class in any way?
I hope this is not a question we ask 4-5 years from now after looking at our class rankings.
That is definitely a concern, and one expressed by the coaches prior to the changes. Hopefully if that is the reason, the coaches work with OU to find a way around it for future classes.
BC
02-07-2018, 05:04 PM
I apologize if Im mistaken, but arent our entering frosh allowed to take some summer courses now?
I know the Universitys argument against early enrollment is they want to preserve the whole class experience. But if frosh can take summer courses then that seems to be an exception right there. So the usual slippery slope discussion beckons in that adding Spring Quarter to that exception doesnt seem to be that big a stretch. Let the incoming players still go through Orientation Week with the rest of the class in the fall. I dont see the harm in giving 1% of the class that exemption/option. Two quarters of say, an 8-unit academic load helps a lot for student-athletes who have to make such a big time commitment to the team over 6-9 months of the year.
I know the Universitys argument against early enrollment is they want to preserve the whole class experience. But if frosh can take summer courses then that seems to be an exception right there. So the usual slippery slope discussion beckons in that adding Spring Quarter to that exception doesnt seem to be that big a stretch. Let the incoming players still go through Orientation Week with the rest of the class in the fall. I dont see the harm in giving 1% of the class that exemption/option. Two quarters of say, an 8-unit academic load helps a lot for student-athletes who have to make such a big time commitment to the team over 6-9 months of the year.
I apologize if Im mistaken, but arent our entering frosh allowed to take some summer courses now?
I know the Universitys argument against early enrollment is they want to preserve the whole class experience. But if frosh can take summer courses then that seems to be an exception right there. So the usual slippery slope discussion beckons in that adding Spring Quarter to that exception doesnt seem to be that big a stretch. Let the incoming players still go through Orientation Week with the rest of the class in the fall. I dont see the harm in giving 1% of the class that exemption/option. Two quarters of say, an 8-unit academic load helps a lot for student-athletes who have to make such a big time commitment to the team over 6-9 months of the year.
I know the Universitys argument against early enrollment is they want to preserve the whole class experience. But if frosh can take summer courses then that seems to be an exception right there. So the usual slippery slope discussion beckons in that adding Spring Quarter to that exception doesnt seem to be that big a stretch. Let the incoming players still go through Orientation Week with the rest of the class in the fall. I dont see the harm in giving 1% of the class that exemption/option. Two quarters of say, an 8-unit academic load helps a lot for student-athletes who have to make such a big time commitment to the team over 6-9 months of the year.
02-07-2018, 05:04 PM
I apologize if Im mistaken, but arent our entering frosh allowed to take some summer courses now?
I know the Universitys argument against early enrollment is they want to preserve the whole class experience. But if frosh can take summer courses then that seems to be an exception right there. So the usual slippery slope discussion beckons in that adding Spring Quarter to that exception doesnt seem to be that big a stretch. Let the incoming players still go through Orientation Week with the rest of the class in the fall. I dont see the harm in giving 1% of the class that exemption/option. Two quarters of say, an 8-unit academic load helps a lot for student-athletes who have to make such a big time commitment to the team over 6-9 months of the year.
I know the Universitys argument against early enrollment is they want to preserve the whole class experience. But if frosh can take summer courses then that seems to be an exception right there. So the usual slippery slope discussion beckons in that adding Spring Quarter to that exception doesnt seem to be that big a stretch. Let the incoming players still go through Orientation Week with the rest of the class in the fall. I dont see the harm in giving 1% of the class that exemption/option. Two quarters of say, an 8-unit academic load helps a lot for student-athletes who have to make such a big time commitment to the team over 6-9 months of the year.
I apologize if Im mistaken, but arent our entering frosh allowed to take some summer courses now?
I know the Universitys argument against early enrollment is they want to preserve the whole class experience. But if frosh can take summer courses then that seems to be an exception right there. So the usual slippery slope discussion beckons in that adding Spring Quarter to that exception doesnt seem to be that big a stretch. Let the incoming players still go through Orientation Week with the rest of the class in the fall. I dont see the harm in giving 1% of the class that exemption/option. Two quarters of say, an 8-unit academic load helps a lot for student-athletes who have to make such a big time commitment to the team over 6-9 months of the year.
I know the Universitys argument against early enrollment is they want to preserve the whole class experience. But if frosh can take summer courses then that seems to be an exception right there. So the usual slippery slope discussion beckons in that adding Spring Quarter to that exception doesnt seem to be that big a stretch. Let the incoming players still go through Orientation Week with the rest of the class in the fall. I dont see the harm in giving 1% of the class that exemption/option. Two quarters of say, an 8-unit academic load helps a lot for student-athletes who have to make such a big time commitment to the team over 6-9 months of the year.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »